[LLVMdev] technical debt

[reed kotler]

Well, differences of opinion is what makes horse races.

Reed

On 06/04/2012 04:57 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:53 PM, reed kotler<rkotler at mips.com>  wrote:
>> On 06/04/2012 03:25 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>>> I'm pretty sure neither llvm nor clang have any technical debt at all.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 5:18 PM, reed kotler<rkotler at mips.com>    wrote:
>>>> something to think about as llvm and clang grows.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_debt
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>> I hope you are joking.
>>
> Why would I be joking?
>
>> It's not meant as a criticism of llvm or clang but there is already an
>> enormous amount
>> of technical debt.
> I don't see that.
>
>> It's something to try and get a handle on before it gets out of hand.
> The consequences will never be the same
>> Documentation is one area where it is accumulating fast but there are
>> others.
> I think LLVM is incredibly well documented
>> Testing is another area.
> It also has at least 10-15 tests.
>> Tablegen alone has huge technical debt.
> I'm sorry you feel that way.
>> To me, there should be a cap placed on the number of lines of code in llvm.
> Will there be a credit offset system?
>> Like a budget. We should try and rewrite and refactor to keep the number of
>> lines from growing
>> without bound.
>>
>> At this point lots of patterns should be developing where other tools (like
>> tablegen) could be
>> written to reduce the amount of code and make things more understandable.
> I agree. We should macroize most of the passes so they aren't so wordy.
>
>> Reed
>>